The    Propei'ty 

OF    THE 


BARTON    SQUARE,    SALEM. 


DEPOSITED 


■IN    TIIR  — 


LIBRARY 


—  OF    THK  — 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


LETTER 


REV.    WILLIAM   E.  CHANNING, 


OK  THE  SUBJECT  OF  HIS  LETTER  TO  THE 


REV.  BAMUEL  C.  THATCHER, 


HELATIXG   TO  THE 


REA  lEW  IN  THE  PANOPLIST 


AMERICAN    UNITAKIAIVISM. 


BY  SAMUEL  WORCESTER,  D.  D. 

FASTOB  OF  THE  TABEKXACLK  CHUSCH,  SALKM. 


BOSTON: 

JHINTED   BT   SAMUEL  T.   ARMSTRONG,  SO,    50,   COEIfaJI.l, 


181.). 

ice 


EEV.   AND   DEAR   SIR, 

I  HAVE  read  your  Letter  to  your  Friend  and  Brother 
the  Rev.  Samuel  C.  Thatcher,  with  some  pleasure  and 
v/ith  much  regret.  The  causes  of  the  one  and  of  the  other 
will  in  part  be  laid  open  in  the  subsequent  remarks,  wliich  I 
have  thought  proper  to  address  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  you. 
I  need  make  no  apology:  the  subject  is  deeply  and  extensive- 
ly interesting;  and  involves  considerations  of  infinite  mo- 
ment to  the  general  cause,  to  wliich  you  and  I  profess  to  be 
sacredly  devoted.  Nor  shall  I  make  any  professions  of  can- 
dour, or  charity:  for  I  have  been  taught  by  the  best  of  books, 
that  <''charity  vauntcth  not  itself,  doth  not  behave  itself  un- 
seemly; from  other  books  I  have  learned,  that  high  profes- 
sions too  often  serve  to  cover  a  temper  very  different  from 
that  which  "is  not  easily  provoked,"  but  "suffereth  long  and 
is  kind;"  and  I  am  thoroughly  convinced,  that  persons  who 
have  the  greatest  confidence  in  their  good  dispositions,  do 
not  always  know  "what  manner  of  spirit  they  are  of." 

I  wish  it  to  be  understood,  distinctly,  that  I  have  no  con- 
nexion, or  privity  in  this  business,  with  the  wiiter  of  the 
Review,  wliich  is  the  subject  of  your  strictures.  I  \\Tite  not 
in  his  behalf;  but  in  behalf  of  the  general  interests  of  truth, 
and  justice,  and  mercy.  He  probably  will  answer  for  him- 
self; and  to  him  I  shall  leave  the  particular  vindication  of 
himself,  his  statements  and  conclusions,  his  spirit  and  style: 
a  labour  which  does  not  belong  to  me,  and  which  I  should 
be  less  disinclined  to  undertake,  were  the  Review  in  all  res- 
pects exactly  such  as  I  could  wish  it  to  have  been.  It  might 
perhaps  have  been  better,  had  the  Reviewer  been  less  intent 
on  exciting  those  whose  cause  he  espouses,  and  consulted 
more  the  conviction  and  benefit  of  tliose  against  whom  his 
animadversions  are  directed. 

With  what  justice,  and  to  what  extent,  a  similar  remark 
might  be  applied  to  your  Letter,  you,  my  dear  Sii-,  and  your 
friends  will  consider.     It  cannot,  however,  but  be  rcgrettet^, 


that  you  should  hare  found  it  necessary  to  sit  down  to  write, 
•while  '•brcatliiui?  an  atmosplicrc  to  wliich  you  were  not  accus- 
tomed;'' wliilo  piirturbed  with  the  feelings  Mnich,  in  spite  of 
all  your  efforts  to  restrain  them,  are  so  copiously  infused  in- 
to tlie  entire  body  of  your  Letter.  But  all  reasonable  allow- 
ance should  be  made  for  the  urgency  of  the  case.  Had  you 
waited  till  the  excitement  had  subsided,  your  opportunity  for 
preventing  or  counteracting  the  impressions  which  the  Re- 
view was  liiiely  to  make,  might  have  been  lost.  I  frankly 
confess  that  a  similar  reason  has  induced  me  to  avail  myself 
of  the  earliest  remission  of  other  pressing  calls  of  duty,  for 
bestowing  some  attention  on  your  subject.  Could  you,  how- 
ever, have  waited  till  the  cool  of  the  day,  though  probably 
your  Letter  would  have  been  less  animated,  and  less  adapted 
to  a  particular  purpose,  it  would  not,  I  am  persuaded,  have 
displayed  less  of  the  meekness  of  wisdom,  or  been  less  cor- 
rect in  its  representations. 

You  bring,  dear  Sir,  against  the  Reviewer  an  accusation  of 
f'falseliood:"  an  accusation  certainly  of  no  ti'ivial  kind,  and 
never  to  be  lightly  preferred  against  any  one.  "The  Re- 
"view,"  you  say,  "assei-ts,  1.  Tliatthe  ministers  of  this  toMm 
*'[Boston]  and  its  vicinity  and  the  great  body  of  liberal 
*<clu'istians  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the 
"word.  2.  That  these  ministers  and  liberal  christians  are 
"guilty  of  hypocritical  concealment  of  their  sentiments,  and 
"behave  in  a  base,  cowardly  and  hypocritical  manner."  In 
these  tv.o  assertions,  especially  in  tlic  first  of  them,  it  should 
seem,  lies  the  alleged  ftdsehood  of  tlie  Reviewer.  These 
also  make  the  first  two  heads  of  your  Letter.  The  Sd  is  this: 
^'Christians  are  called  to  come  out  and  separate  themselves 
*«from  these  ministers  and  tlie  liberal  body  of  christians,  and  to 
'^withhold  from  them  christian  communion."  Under  these 
three  heads  in  their  orcUM',  the  remarks  wliich  I  have  to  sub- 
mit to  your  consideration,  will  chiefly  be  ai-ranged. 

I.  Does  the  Reviewer  then  assert,  "That  the  ministers  of 
Boston  and  tlie  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal 
christians  arc  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the 
woi'd?"  This  you  affirm;  and  to  suppoi-t  tlie  affirmation,  you 
quote  from  the  Review  the  following  passages.      "P   267, 


«  <We  feel  entirely  warranted  to  say,  that  the  predominant 
« ^religion  of  the  liberal  pai-ty  is  decidedly  Unitarian,  in  Mr. 
('  <Belsham*s  sense  of  the  word.'  P.  254,  *AVe  shall  feel  our- 
"  ^selves  warranted  hereafter,  to  speak  of  the  first  as  certain, 
« *that  Unitarianism,'  meaning  Mr.  Belshani's,  <is  the  pre- 
"  ^dominant  religion  among  the  ministers  and  churches  of 
"  ^Boston.'  P.  271,  'The  liberal  party  mutilate  tlic  New 
"  'Testament,  reject  neai-ly  all  the  fundamental  doctinnes  of 
"  'the  gospel,  and  degrade  the  Saviour  to  the  condition  of  a 
"  'fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  man.*  "  These  passages  I 
shall  briefly  consider^  but  not  in  the  order  in  which  you 
have  chosen  to  arrange  them:  for  I  am  not  satisfied  that  it 
was  quite  right,  to  place  the  passage,  quoted  from  the  267th 
page,  in  wliich  there  is  no  mention  of  Boston,  before  the  one, 
quoted  from  the  254tli  page,  and  which  refers  to  Boston  di- 
rectly. By  this  arrangement,  with  the  help  of  a  clause 
wliich  you  have  thought  proper  to  insei't  in  the  second  pas- 
sage, you  have  given  to  the  three  passages  an  aspect  which, 
I  believe  you  will  readily  perceive,  does  not  belong  to  them. 
I  think  it  more  fair  to  consider  the  passages  in  the  order  in 
which  they  stand  in  the  Review,  and  to  refer  them  severally 
to  their  proper  connexions. 

Tlie  first  passage  then  is  this:  «We  shall  feel  ourselves 
warranted  hereafter,  to  speak  of  the  first  as  certain,  that 
Unitarianism  is  the  predominant  religion  among  the  minis- 
ters and  churches  in  Boston."  Is  this,  Sir,  an  assertion, 
"That  the  ministers  of  Boston  and  the  vicinity,  and  the 
great  body  of  liberal  christians  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  sense  of  the  word?"  You  will  please  to  observe, 
that  no  mention  is  here  made  of  "the  vicinity,"  or  of  "the 
great  body  of  liberal  christians."  The  remark  is  limited 
to  Boston.  Further,  it  is  not  said  that  '-the  ministers,  i.  e. 
all  the  ministers,  even  of  Boston,  are  Unitarians.  The 
word  "predominant"  is  evidently  restrictive,  and  implies, 
that  they  were  not  all  intended  to  be  included.  Further 
still,  it  is  not  said  that  muj  of  the  ministers  of  Boston  ai-e 
Unitarians,  "in  Mr.  Belshani's  sense  of  the  m  ord." 

Does  the  connexion^  then,  warrant  the  broad  construction, 
which  you  have  given  to  the  passage.     The  Reviewer  pre- 


aents  a  letter,  v^Titlen  by  Dr.  Freeman  of  Boston  to  Mr. 
Lindsey  of  London,  in  which,  after  mentioning  the  "avidity" 
with  which  the  •'Unitarian  Tracts,"  received  by  him  from 
Mr.  Lindsey,  were  extensively  read,  and  the  "impression 
whicli  they  could  not  fail  to  make  upon  the  minds  of  many," 
Dr.  Frefinan  says,  "From  these  and  other  causes  the  Uni- 
tarian doctrine  appears  to  be  still  upon  the  increase."  "It 
flourishes  chiefly  in  New  England;  but  not  much  in  Con- 
necticut, Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire,  or  the  western 
counties  of  Massachusetts.  A  few  seeds  have  been  sown  in 
Vermont,  and  an  abundant  harvest  has  been  produced  in 
the  vicinity  of  Boston,  and  in  the  counties  directly  south  of 
it."  Immediately  in  this  connexion,  the  Reviewer  says, 
"IIo\\  far  the  sentiments  in  question  have  spread  in  Boston, 
♦•has  been  often  a  subject  of  inquiry,  and  not  unfrequcntly  of 
"debate.  Mr.  Belsham  will  inform  us.  *If,  says  he,  I  am 
"  *not  greatly  misinformed,  divine  worship,  in  many  of  the 
*^ipriucipal  churches  in  Boston,  is  cai'ried  on  upon  principles 
♦••strictly,  if  not  avowedly  Unitarian.'"  The  Reviewer 
tlien  adds,  "If  any  thing  be  lacking  in  Mr.  Belsham's  ac- 
<«count,  it  is  supplied  in  a  letter  to  him,  by  William  Wells, 
"Esq.  of  Boston,  a  gentleman  who,  from  his  extensive  ac- 
"quaintance  with  books  and  men,  and  his  distinguished  zeal 
<'in  the  cause  of  Unitarianism,  may  well  be  supposed  to  give 
*«as  exact  a  picture  as  any  man  living  could  draw."  In  this 
letter,  which  the  Reviewer  gives  at  large,  Mr.  Wells  says, 
"Most  of  our  Boston  clergy  and  respectable  laymen  (of  whom 
we  have  many  enlightened  theologians)  are  Unitarians." — "I 
"may  safely  say,  the  general  habit  of  thinking  and  speaking 
"upon  this  question,  in  Boston,  is  Unitarian."  Upon  this 
the  Reviewer  remarks,  "Such  is  tlie  testimony  in  the  case 
••under  consideration;"  (viz.  "How  far  the  sentiments  in 
♦•question  have  spreail  in  Boston:)  and  we  presume  tliat  no 
♦•man  in  his  senses  will  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  give  implicit 
♦♦ci-edit  to  such  witnesses."  Here  comes  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion: ''We  shall  feel  »)ui*sclves  warranted  hereafter  to  speak 
♦♦of  the  first  as  certain,  tljat  Unitarianism  is  the  predominant 
♦♦religion  among  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston." 
Now,  dear  Sir,  you  will  permit  me  to  ask  again,  and  to 


ask  very  seriously,  does  the  connexion  warrant  the  broad 
construction  which  you  have  given  to  this  passage?    A  con- 
struction which  the  terms  of  the  passage,  by  themselves,  cer- 
tainly do  not  warranty  but  upon  which  you  have  grounded 
the  heavy  accusation  of  falsehood.     Is  not  the  inquiry,  in  this 
connexion,  limited  expressly  to  Boston,  to  the  exclusion  most 
clearly  of  "its  vicinity,*'  and  of  "the  great  body  of  liberal 
"christians*'  elsewhere?  Does  not  the  Reviewer  come  to  the 
conclusion,  expressed  in  the  debated  passage,  explicitly  upon 
the  gi'ound  of  the  adduced  testimony  of  Mr.  Bclsham  and 
Mr.  Wells,  in  addition  to  that  of  Dr.  Freeman?  And  does  he 
not  use  the  name  Unitarian  as  unrestrictedly,  as  it  is  used 
by  Mr.  Wells  himself,  who  must  very  well  have  known  hov; 
Mr.  Belsham  would  be  likely  to  understand  him?  Upon  what 
principles,  then,  of  fau'ness  or  of  truth  could  we  be  justified 
in  alleging,  that  the  Review  here  "asserts,  that  the  minis- 
"ters  of  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liber- 
"al  christians  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense   of 
"the  word." 

Before  I  dismiss  this  point,  I  must  be  permitted  to  ask 
further — Is  not  the  Reviewer  fairly  borne  out,  in  the  de- 
claration which  he  does  make,  respecting  Boston,  by  the 
testimony  upon  which  the  declaration  is  made?  Had  he  not 
a  right  to  consider  Dr.  Freeman,  Mr.  Belsham  and  Mr. 
Wells,  good  authority  in  the  case?  Docs  he  say  more  than 
what  their  testimony,  particularly  that  of  Mr.  ATells,  evi- 
dently warrants?  Wliy  then  the  heated  indignation  against 
hinh  while  none  is  expressed  against  tJwm?  Why  the  strenu- 
ous endeavour  to  inflame  and  direct  the  resentments  of  the 
ministers  and  people  of  Boston  against  /li/n,  while  they  are 
treated  with  such  exemplary  forbearance?— Nay,  rather, 
what  occasion  for  any  indignation,  or  resentment,  either 
against  him  or  them?  Do  you  not.  Sir,  youi-self  mean  to  con- 
cede as  much  respecting  Boston,  as  he  asserts, — when  you  say, 
"The  word  Unitaiianism,  as  denoting  opposition  to  "Trinita- 
rianisra,  undoubtedly  expresses  the  character  of  a  "considera- 
ble part  of  the  ministers  of  this  town  and  its  vicinity?"  I  dai^e 
not,  indeed,  affirm  that  you,  do^  especially  since  you  think 
it  proper  to  add  in  the  same  sentence,— "and  the  common- 


8 

wealth."  I  have  great  satisfaction  in  the  confidence,  that 
Unitarianism  is  not  the  "predominant  religion"  among  the 
ministers  and  chui'chcs  of  this  commonwealth,  and  in  the 
hope  in  God  that  it  never  ^^  ill  be.  I  do  suppose,  however, 
that  you  have  great  satisfaction  also  in  the  confidence,  that 
it  "is  tlic  predominant  religion  among  the  ministers  and 
cliurches  of  Boston."  But  if  so,  what  can  be  the  reason 
that  the  true  statement  of  the  fact  should  produce  such  an 
unusual  intensity  of  heat  in  your  mind? 

The  next  passage  to  be  considered  is  this:  "We  feel  en- 
«<tirely  wari'anted  to  say,  that  the  predominant  religion  of 
"the  liberal  party  is  decidedly  Unitarian,  in  Mr.  Belsham's 
**sense  of  the  word."  Docs  this  "assert,  that  the  ministers 
«»of  Boston  and  its  Aicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal 
"christians  are"  of  tins  chai'acter?  Certainly,  Sir,  you  will 
not  hesitate  to  admit  that,  by  itself,  it  docs  not.  Does  it  then, 
when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  former  passage?  The  former 
passage  instead  of  helping  to  extend  the  sense  of  this,  evidently 
serves  to  restrict  it:  for  that  passage  plainly  imports,  that  the 
ministers  and  churches  of  Boston  are  not  all  Unitarian,  even 
m  the  general  sense  of  the  word.  In  each  of  these  passa- 
ges the  restrictive  woi"d,  "predominant,"  is  usedj  and  in  the 
latter  passage,  to  give  it  the  greater  force  of  restriction,  it 
is  printed  in  Italic  ks.  The  utmost  then,  that  can  be  fairly 
made  out  from  the  two  passages  together,  of  assertion  in  re- 
gard to  t!ie  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston,  is,  tliat  the 
majority  of  them  are  Unitarian,  and  that  the  greater  ])art  of 
the  Unitarian  majority  hold  with  Mr.  Belsham.  All  tliis 
might  be  true,  and  yet  not  half  of  those  ministers  and 
churches  be  Unitarians  of  this  character.  Yet  you,  my  dear 
Sir,  have  emphatically  represented  that,  in  these  passages, 
"the  Review  asserts,  that  the  ministers  of  Boston,  witli  the 
ministers  of  the  vi(  inity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal  christ- 
ians are  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word:" 
and,  under  cover  of  this  representation,  have,  in  your  haste, 
most  earnestly  accused  the  Reviewer  of  falsehood. 

I  have  stated  the  ntmost  that  can  fairly  be  made  out  towards 
what  you  allege.  But  the  passage  under  consideration  admits 
of  an  interpretation,  stUl  less  favourable  to  your  allegation. 


It  may  mean  a  "predominance,"  not  in  point  of  numbers,  but 
in  point  «f  iirfluence:  and  from  the  connexion  this  should  seem 
to  be  its  real  meaning.  After  stating,  "We  feel  entirely  war- 
ranted to  say,  that  the  predominant  religion  of  the  liberal 
party  is  decidedly  Unitarian  in  Mr.  Belshani's  sense  of  the 
word,"  the  Reviewer  proceeds  to  shew  the  grounds  upon 
which  this  declaration  is  made.  He  adduces  the  Monthly 
Anthology,  the  General  Repository,  and  the  Improved  Ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament;  publications  which,  as  he  sup- 
poses, were  put  forth  and  pati'onized  by  "the  most  prominent 
clergymen  and  laymen  of  the  liberal  party," — men  "who 
have  the  entire  conti'ol  of  the  college."  And,  after  saying 
what  he  judged  requisite,  respecting  the  Unitarianism  of  these 
publications,  he  concludes  thus:  "It  appears,  then,  that  the 
"College  and  nearly  all  the  influence  of  the  liberal  party 
"through  the.  medium  of  the  press  are  in  favour  of  Unitarian- 
"ism.  If  individuals  dislike  Mr.  Belsham  as  a  leader;  if  they 
"are  not  willing  to  be  classed  among  his  followers;  let  them 
"declare  their  own  opinions  openly."  Here  then,  we  have 
evidently  an  explanation  of  what  tlie  Reviewer  meant,  by 
"Unitarianism  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  tlie  word  being  the 
predominant  religion  of  the  liberal  party:"  that  it  is  predomi- 
nant in  point  of  "inHuence,"  having  "the  most  prominent 
characters"  for  its  supporters  and  abettors.  This,  as  you 
Will  readily  acknowledge,  might  be  true,  though  not  one  half, 
not  one  quarter  of  "the  great  body  of  liberal  Christians" 
were  Unitarians  in  this  sense.  And,  Sii',  that  it  is  not  actu- 
ally true,  nothing  which  you  have  advanced  goes  to  shew. 

What,  however,  the  real  truth  in  the  case  is,  I  will  not  take 
upon  me  to  say:  but  I  must  say,  that  I  do  not  see  that  the 
Reviewer  may  not  have  been  perfectly  honest  in  the  opinion 
which  he  has  expressed;  perfectly  honest  in  declaring  that  he 
"feels  himself  entirely  warranted  to  say"  what  he  does  say. 
If  his  opinion  is  a  mistaken  one,  yet  an  "unpervertcd  mind" 
will  admit,  tliat  tiie  grounds  on  wliich  it  was  formed  have  at 
least  the  appearance  of  some  solidity;  and  it  would  require,  it 
should  seem,  no  uncommon  share  of  "the  meekness  of  wisdom," 
no  extraordinary  effort  of  that  "charity  which  hopeth  all 
tilings,"  to  refrain  from  charging  him  with  falsehood. 
2 


10 

One  other  passage,  under  this  licad,  remams  to  be  consid- 
ered: ♦•The  liberal  party  mutilate  the  New  Testament,  reject 
nearly  all  the  I'uudamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  de- 
grade the  Sa\iour  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  peccable, 
and  ii^norant  man."  This  is  the  last  of  the  three  passages 
which  you  ha\e  cited  to  shew  that  the  "Review  asserts,  that 
the  ministers  of  Boston  and  the  vicinity,  and  the  great  body 
of  liberal  Christians  are  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Belsham*s  sense 
of  the  word,"  and  upon  Avliich  you  ground  your  principal 
accusation  of  falsehood.  But  is  it  here  asserted,  that  all  the 
individuals  of  the  liberal  paiiy  actually  do  the  things,  and  all 
of  them,  which  the  party  is  said  to  do?  Is  this  a  fair  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage?  Or  if  it  admits  of  tliis^  docs  it  faii'ly 
admit  of  no  other? 

The  apostles,  Sir,  as  you  very  well  know,  repeatedly 
charge  the  Jewish  rulers  and  people,  generally,  even  "the 
great  body'*  of  t!ie  nation,  with  having  "crucified  and  slain 
the  Loi'd  of  life  and  glory."  Yet,  as  you  also  know,  but  a 
vciy  small  part  of  that  great  body  actually  imbrued  their 
hands  in  his  blood.  But  some  of  them  didj  and  of  the  rest, 
some  more,  and  others  less  dii'ectly,  consented  to  the  deed. 
Hence  they  were  generally  involved  in  the  guilt,  and  brought 
under  the  charge;  and  upon  the  great  body,  eventually, 
"wTath  came  to  the  uttermost."  Such  was  the  judgment  of 
the  apostles;  and  such  the  judgment  of  Him,  whose  throne  is 
established  in  righteousness. — And,  Sir,  if  among  the  liberal 
party,  the  things  charged  by  the  Reviewer  are  done;  if  some 
of  the  party  do  actually  "mutilate  the  New  Testament,  reject 
nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  de- 
grade the  Saviour  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  peccable,  and 
ignorant  man," — and  of  the  rest,  some  more,  and  others  less 
directly,  consent  to  all  this;  if,  as  a  party,  or  as  individuals 
of  the  party,  they  bear  no  decided  testimony  against  these 
deeds,  and  do  nothing  elToctually  to  secure,  or  to  purge  them- 
selves from  the  guilt  of  them;  then,  is  it  not  true,  and  right, 
and  proper  to  say  of  the  party  generally,  that  they  do  these 
tilings?  and  will  they  not  generally,  a\  ith  all  wlio  adhere  to 
them,  be  held  to  answer  for  them  at  the  bar  of  the  risrhteous 
Judge? 


n 

• 

But  are  not  these  things  done? — I  tremble,  my  dear  Sir^ 
while  I  put  this  question  to  your  conscience: — tremble,  not 
because  I  feel  that  I  am  doing  wrong,-  but  because  I  consider 
it  a  question  of  infinite  solemnity. — It  surely  will  not  be  de- 
nied, that  "the  New  Testament  is  mutilatedj" — it  will  not 
be  denied,  that  "tlie  Saviour  is  degraded  to  the  condition  of 
a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  man^" — nor  should  it  any 
more  be  denied,  that  "nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Gospel  are  rejected."  I  do  believe  you  will  yourself 
admit,  that  nearly  all  the  doctrines  are  rejected,  which,  by  the 
venerable  founders  of  the  New  England  cliurches  were  held 
as  fundamental;— which  the  great  body  of  the  Protestant 
churches,  since  the  Reformation,  have  held  as  fundamental. 

How  great  a  pi'oportion  of  the  liberal  party  actually  do  all 
this,  and  to  hoM'^  great  an  extent  the  rest  of  them  consent  to 
it,  I  would  be  devoutly  thankful,  that  I  am  not  particularly 
concerned  to  determine.  But  I  must  seriously  ask,  whether, 
from  the  representations  made  in  your  letter,  w^ei'e  there  no 
other  means  of  jtulging  in  the  case,  there  would  not  be  most 
fearful  reason  to  apprehend,  that  you  and  your  liberal  breth- 
ren generally  have  done  but  very  little,  to  secure  yourselves 
from  the  general  charge,  or,  I  must  add,  to  purge  yourselves 
from  the  general  guilt? — It  grieves  me,  dear  Sir,  to  state,  that 
in  your  Letter  you  tell  us,  in  so  many  words,  that  "to  believe 
with  Mr.  Belsham  is  no  crime:" — by  which  I  understand, 
no  sin, — no  offence  against  God — against  Christ — against 
the  Gospel — against  the  cause  and  kingdom  of  truth  and 
holiness. — No  sin — no  offence,  to  hold  Christ  to  have  been 
no  more  than  "a  fallible,  peccable,  and  ignorant  manj" — to 
discard  those  parts  of  the  New  Testament  which  assert  his 
pre-existence,  his  miraculous  conception,  his  divinity,  and  his 
atonement,  as  either  spurious,  erroneous,  or  extravagantly 
hyperbolical; — to  deny  that  his  death  was  an  expiatory  sacri- 
fice for  sin,  that  "we  oAve  him  any  gratitude  for  the  benefits 
which  we  are  now  receiving,"  that  "we  have  any  reason  to 
hope  for  his  future  interposition; — to  deny  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  generally,  and  reject  all  the  fundamental,  all 
tlie  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Gospel!— You  are  also  most  stu- 
diously careful,  most   exquisitely  tender,   lest  any  "state- 


12 

racnt  you  make  should  be  considered,  as  casting  the  least 
reproach  on  those  amongst  us,  who  believe  in  the  simple 
humanity  of  Jesus  Christ;"  and,  of  course,  agree  with  Mr. 
Bclsljam,  if  not  in  all,  yet  certainly  in  the  most  material  arti- 
cles of  liis  creed. — Most  studiously  careful,  most  exquisitely 
tender,  lest  you  should  wound  their  feelings,  abridge  their  in- 
fliienre,  or  hinder  their  success  in  propagating  tlieir  senti- 
ments! And  from  other  parts  of  your  Letter,  it  would  seem 
that  such  has  been  the  uniform  feeling,  and  conformable  to  it 
the  uniform  practice,  not  only  of  yourself,  but  of  your  liberal 
brethren  in  general. 

Now,  Sir,  if  such  is  the  real  fact,  however  small  a  propor- 
tion of  the  liberal  party  those  may  be,  who  actually  do  the 
tilings  in  question;  yet  is  it  not  perfectly  correct  to  say,  gen- 
erally, that  the  liberal  party  do  them.  And  if  so,  where  is 
the  foundation  for  the  serious  charge  of  falsehood,  so  vehe- 
mently urged  against  the  Reviewer? 

You  ai-e  pleased  to  say,  (p.  7.)  "The  conduct  of  the  Re- 
«<viewer,  in  collecting  all  the  opinions  of  that  gentleman,'* 
Mr.  Bclsham,  «'not  only  on  the  Trinity,  but  on  every  other 
'"theological  subject,  in  giving  the  wJiole  collection  the  name 
"of  Unitarianism,  and  in  exhibiting  this  to  the  world  as  the 
"creed  of  liberal  Christians  in  this  region,  is  perhaps  as 
"criminal  an  instance  of  unfairness,  as  is  to  be  found  in  the 
"records  of  tlieological  controversy."  Upon  this  permit  me 
to  ask, — Did  you  overlook  that  Mr.  Belsham  exhibits  the 
opinions,  thus  collected,  not  as  peculiarly  his  own,  but  ex- 
pressly as  the  sentiments  of  the  Unitarians  generally?  Have 
the  goodness  to  observe  his  phraseology:  "The  Unitarians 
generally  believe,"  &c.  "Tiie  Unitarians  maintain,"  &c. 
"The  Unitarians  disavow,"  kc.  Was  it  not  right  for  the 
Reviewer  to  consider  Mr.  Belsham,  at  present  the  head  of 
the  party  certainly  in  England,  as  good  an  authority  for  de- 
termining what  Unitarianism  is,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  as 
"Dr.  Mosljeim"  or  "Miss  Adams?"  and  right  also  to  give 
the  people  some  distinct  information  on  this  subject?  Is  not 
the  fact  well  known  to  you,  that  Unitarianism  is  a  "name," 
not  opprobi'iously  given  to  that  class  of  professed  christians 
by  their  opponents,  but  eagerly  claimed,  and  strenuously  as- 


13 

serted  by  themselves?  Are  you  not  also  perfectly  aware, 
that  after  the  denial  of  the  essential  divinity  and  the  proper 
atonement  of  Clu'ist,  the  descent  to  the  lowest  degree  of  Uni- 
tarianism  is  extremely  easy,  and  often  most  rapid?  That 
among  those,  who  reject  these  primary  doctrines  a  peculiar 
brotherhood  is  at  once  established?  and  that  any  differences 
of  sentiment  which  may  exist  among  them,  are  considered  by 
themselves  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  as  compartively 
unimportant, — and  are  so  considered  also  by  theii*  oppo- 
nents the  Trinitarians,  who  regard  the  denial  of  these  doc- 
trines as  subversive  of  the  very  foundations  of  the  gospel? 
In  what  then  consists  tlie  extreme  criminality,  with  which 
the  Reviewer  is  so  warmly  charged? 

To  conclude  this  head.  You  have  accused  the  Reviewer 
of  falsehood,  in  "asserting.  That  the  ministers  of  Boston 
and  its  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal  christians  ai  e 
Unitai'ians  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word."  I  trust  it 
has  been  made  clear,  that  this  accusation  is  unfounded:  that 
he  does  not  make  the  assertion  which  you  allege  that  he 
makes;  and  in  that  what  he  does  assert,  in  the  passages  cit- 
ed by  you,  he  is  in  part  justified  by  your  own  concession, 
and  in  the  rest  borne  out  by  the  testimony  of  liberal  gentle- 
men, and  by  principles  of  fail'  interpretation, — I  frankly 
confess  that  I  did  regret,  when  I  first  read  the  Review,  and 
I  do  stiU  regret,  that  he  had  not  expressed  himself  with 
more  studious  care,  and  more  circumspect  qualification.  But 
for  the  heavy  accusation,  which  you  have  preferred  against 
him,  and  for  the  uncommon  heat  with  which  it  is  urged,  1 
am  utterly  incapable  of  discerning  any  solid  reason.  "A 
man  who  is  governed  by  christian  principles,  will  slowly 
and  reluctantly  become  the  accuser  of  his  bretliren."  Tliis 
sentiment.  Sir,  I  quote  from  you  with  most  hearty  approba- 
tion. Near  it,  however,  is  a  passage,  which  I  quote  with 
no  common  sensation  of  pain.  "Tbat  he,"  the  Reviewer, 
^'intended  to  deceive  I  am  unwilling  to  assert;  but  the  most 
"chai'itable  construction  which  his  conduct  will  admit  is. 
"that  his  passions  and  pai'ty  spirit  have  criminally  blinded 
««him,  and  humed  him  into  an  act,  wbich  could  have  been 
"authorized  only  by  the  strongest  evidence,  and  the  most  im- 


14 

'.pai-tial  inquiry.  The  time  may  come,  when  he  will  view 
«*this  triuisactioii  with  other  eyes^  \^hen  the  rage  of  party 
♦*will  have  subsided^  when  the  obligation  of  a  fair  and  equita- 
<*blc  temper  will  appear  at  least  as  solemn  as  the  obligation 
"of  building  up  a  sect,-  when  misrepresentation,  intended  to 
"injure,  and  originating,  if  not  in  malignity,  yet  in  precipi- 
*'tancy  and  passion,  will  be  felt  to  be  a  crime  of  no  common 
"aggravation." — God  in  mercy  preserve  me  from  the  desire 
of  applying  this  passage.  But,  my  dear  Sir,  I  muet  be  per- 
mitted to  intreat  you,  at  some  favoured  moment,  when  passion 
is  hushed,  wlicn  conscience  is  awake,  wlien  God  and  eternal 
things  are  in  view,  very  seiiously  to  consider,  whether  it 
might  be  applied  with  greater  justice  to  the  writer  of  the 
Panoplist  Review,  than  to  the  ^\^•iter  of  the  Letter  to  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Thatcher. 

II.  In  the  second  place  you  allege,  that  "the  Review  as- 
♦^serts,  tliat  the  ministers  of  Boston  and  tlie  vicinity,  and  the 
"most  considerable  members  of  the  liberal  party,  ^operate  in 
"  <secret,  entrust  only  the  initiated  with  their  measures;  arc 
"'<guilty  of  hypocritical  concealment  of  their  sentiments; 
"  *behave  in  a  base  and  hypocritical  manner,  compaied  with 
"  <which  Mr.  Belsham's  conduct,  rotten  as  he  is  in  doctrine 
"  <to  the  very  core,  is  purity  itself.' — Such,  you  are  pleased  to 
add,  "is  the  decent  language  scattered  through  this  Review." 
And  in  a  note,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  you  throw  togeth- 
er a  number  of  severed  plirases,  selected  from  various  parts 
and  connexions  of  the  Review,  and  represent  them  all  as 
having  been  applied  by  the  Reviewer,  directly  to  yourself 
and  your  clerical  brethren  generally  of  Boston  and  the  vi- 
cinity, together  with  the  most  considerable  members  of  the 
liberal  party  at  large. 

You  arc  perfectly  aware.  Sir,  how  easy  a  thing  it  is  to 
select  from  any  book  detached  sentences  and  members  of 
sentences,  and  so  to  arrange  tliem  as  to  give  them  a  very 
ctifFoi-ent  aspe(  t  and  bearing,  from  what  they  have  in  theii* 
proper  connexions.  A  more  striking  example  of  this  kind  I 
have  seklom  if  ever  witnessed,  tlian  the  one  which  you  have 
afforded  in  the  instance  now  before  us.  Of  all  the  quotations 
which  you  have  made  fi-om  the  Review,  as  the  basis  of  your 


15 

accusation  under  tUs  second  head,  I  think  I  may  safely  af- 
firm, there  is  not  one  sentence,  or  scrap  of  a  sentence,  which 
appears  in  your  Letter,  vdt\\  tlie  same  aspect  and  bearing  as 
in  the  Review.  Wlien  I  first  read  them  in  your  Letter,  I 
felt,  I  confess,  no  small  degree  of  excitement  in  regard  to  the 
Reviewer;  and  no  little  surprise  that  I  could  have  read  the 
Review  without  a  similar  excitement.  But  not  less  was  my 
surprise,  when,  on  turning  to  the  Review  I  perceived  how 
very  differently  they  there,  in  their  proper  connexions,  ap- 
peared. My  limits  will  permit  me  to  present  but  a  few  of 
them  here. 

Speaking  of  the  Stone  Chapel,  the  Reviewer  remarks, 
«We  must  say  that  the  conduct  of  this  society  and  theii*  min- 
ister, in  coming  out  openly  and  avowing  their  sentiments  to 
the  world,  is  vastly  preferable  to  a  hypocritical  concealment  of 
them.  The  words  in  Italicks  ai'e  those  which  you  quote,  as 
being  applied  by  the  Reviewer  to  "the  ministers  of  Boston," 
&c.  but  no  such  application  of  them  is  made  by  him. — Of  a 
remarkable  letter,  written  by  a  clergyman  in  this  country  to 
his  friend  in  England,  and  published  by  Mr.  Belsham,  the 
Reviewer  says,  "The  object  of  Mr.  Belsham  in  publishing 
it  was,  to  chastise  the  Boston  clergy  for  their  cowardice  in 
concealing  their  religious  opinions,**  This  expresses  what  the 
Reviewer  supposed  to  be  Mr.  Belsham*s  opinion  of  the  Bos- 
ton clergy:  and  I  presume.  Sir,  you  wUl  admit  that  he  was 
warranted  by  the  documents  before  him,  in  believing  that 
such  was  Mr.  Belsham*s  opinion,  and  such  his  design  in 
publishing  the  letter.  "The  idea  that  a  minister  believes  the 
truths  of  the  gospel  to  be  of  infinite  importance,  and  still 
conceals  them,  is  incompatible  ivith  either  fidelity  or  integnty,^* 
Here  the  Reviewer  expresses  a  general  sentiment,  without 
applying  it;  a  sentiment  which  you.  Sir,  I  doubt  not,  will 
readily  acknowledge  to  be  just. 

My  principal  reason  for  selecting  these  passages,  rather 
than  others  partl}^  quoted  by  you,  is,  that  they  could  be  pre- 
sented in  theii"  proper  connexions  and  aspects  in  fewer  words. 
These,  however,  will  be  admitted,  I  trust,  as  a  pretty  fair 
sample  of  t'ne  whole. 


16 

After  making  such  quotations  of  dctaclied  sentences  and 
scraps  of  sentences,  as  you  thought  proper,  to  shew  that  the 
Reviewer  had  cliarged  you  and  your  liheral  brethren  witli  a 
"hypocritical  concealment  of  your  sentiments,"  you  proceed 
to  notice  the  proofs  upon  wliicli  ho  rests  tliis  charge.  These, 
as  you  state,  are  "a  Letter  from  Dr.  Freeman,  and  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Wells  to  Mr.  Belsham."  These  Letters  you  very 
dexterously  despatcli;  excepting  that  you  quote  from  that  of 
Mr.  Wells  a  particular  passage,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing 
"the  method,"  as  you  say,  "in  which  it  is  distorted  by  the 
Reviewer."  This  letter  tlic  Reviewer  gives  cntii'e,  and  I 
believe  correctly^  but  aftenvards  he  does  quote  the  passage 
in  question  with  some  variation.  The  quotation  however  is 
made,  not,  as  you  represent,  for  the  purpose  of  supporting 
the  charge  of  liypocritical  concealment,  not  in  any  connexion 
with  tliis  topickj  but  most  plainly  for  the  purpose  of  making 
out  a  list  of  epitlietical  and  encomiastick  descriptions,  given 
by  Mr.  Wells  of  gentlemen  of  the  liberal  party;  and  the  pas- 
sage is  so  shaped,  as  to  be  the  more  conveniently  arranged 
in  the  list.  This  alters  the  case  materially.  The  Reviewer 
does  not  bring  forward  a  passage  in  a  "distorted"  form,  foi- 
the  purpose  of  proving  a  charge  of  hypocritical  concealment. 
But  you  have  accused  him  of  doing  this;  and  to  give  the  accu- 
sation tlie  deeper  impression,  you  utter  yourself  in  the  follow- 
ing remarkable  terms:  "An  unpervei-ted  mind  turns  with  sor- 
«>row  and  disgust  from  such  uncharitable  and  disingenuous 
"dealing;  and  why  all  this  labour  to  distort  what  is  so  plain? 
"the  object  is,  to  fix  the  character  of  knaves  and  hypocrites 
"on  a  large  class  of  christians  and  christian  ministers.  I 
"might  here  be  permitted  to  dip  my  pen  in  gall;  but  I  do  not 
"write  for  those,  whose  moral  feeling  is  so  dull,  as  to  need 
"indignant  comment  on  practices  like  these." — And  certainly. 
Sir,  this  passage  of  yours  needs  no  "comment"  of  mine.  I 
can  only  deplore  and  deprecate  the  state  of  mind  from  which 
only  it  could  have  proceeded. 

I  mean  not,  dear  Sir,  to  deny  that  the  Review  does  charge 
ministers,  and  perliaps  others,  of  the  party  called  liberal,  with 
want  of  openness  and  clearness  in  avowing  and  explaining 
their  sentiments;  nay,  with  designed  "concealment"  and  cuj- 


IT 

pable  disguise.  Nor  will  I  dissemble  that  I  have  felt  no  lit- 
tle regret,  that  its  language  on  this  subject  had  not  been  in  a 
style  of  less  repulsive  freedom  and  apparent  asperity.  I  am 
fully  aware  that  this  is  tender  groundj  and  I  feel  most  deeply 
the  difficulty  and  the  delicacy  of  the  subject. 

It  does,  however,  appear  to  me  very  clear,  that  Dr.  Free- 
man, Mr.  Wells,  and  Mr.  Belsham  did  suppose,  and  that  in 
the  documents  on  which  the  Reviewer  principally  relies  as  his 
vouchers,  they  do  represent,  that  liberal  ministers  and  other 
liberal  gentlemen  have  judged  it  proper,  not  to  make  ordina- 
rily a  free  and  full  disclosure  of  tlieir  sentiments:  that  they 
have  in  fact  thought  it  expedient  to  temporize.  Whether,  in 
this  opinion  of  you  and  your  brethren,  those  gentlemen  are 
correct  or  not,  you  must  have  been  apprised,  that  the  opin- 
ion is  not  peculiar  to  them,  but  very  extensively  prevalent: 
prevalent,  not  among  those  only,  whom  you  wouLl  consider 
your  adversaries,  but  also  among  your  friends.  Hundreds 
and  hundreds  of  times  have  I  heard  it  uttered  from  various 
quarters,  and  with  various  expressions  of  approbation  and 
disapprobation;  and  never,  in  any  debate  or  conversation,  as 
I  recollect,  have  I  heard  the  truth  of  it  denied,  or  called  in 
question.  It  seems  indeed  to  have  been  received  as  an  estab- 
lished, uncontested  fact,  that  ministers  of  the  liberal  class 
were  not  accustomed  to  be  unreserved  and  explicit  in  the 
publick  avowal  and  declaration  of  their  sentiments.  I  con- 
fess to  you.  Sir,  that  I  had  so  received  it;  nor  did  I  ever  im- 
agine that  in  so  receiving  it,  there  was  any  thing  injurious  or 
uncharitable;  for  I  did  suppose  that  you  and  your  liberal 
brethren  held  it  as  a  maxim,  founded  upon  reasons  satisfac- 
tory to  your  own  minds,  that  a  degree  of  reserve  and  conceal- 
ment, greater  or  less  according  to  circumstances,  was  pru- 
dent, and  justifiable,  and  praiseworthy.  In  this  supposition 
I  have  been  from  time  to  time  strengthened,  by  conversations 
with  respectable  individuals  of  the  class,  and  not  a  little  con- 
firmed by  what  I  have  occasionally  heard  from  the  pulpit.  I 
have  now  in  very  fresh  remembrance  some  sentiments  to  this 
effect,  delivered  in  a  sermon  which  I  heard  at  an  ordination 
in  Boston  a  few  months  ago;  and  in  which  the  preacher  very 
distinctly,  and  with  considerable  amplification^  held  foi-tfi 
5 


18 

that,  thoui?h  in  some  places  it  might  be  well,  and  "contribute 
»»to  the  I'aith  and  vii-tuc  of  the  people,"  for  a  minister  openly 
and  plainly  to  djeclarc  his  sentiments,  yet  in  other  places  it 
would  not  be  prudent  or  proper:  and  in  regard  to  tiiis,  the 
gentleman  then  ordained  was  aflectionately  and  earnestly 
advised  to  regulate  himself,  according  to  the  liabits  of  tliink- 
ing  and  feeling,  the  prejudices  or  freedom  from  prejudice, 
which  lie  should  find  to  prevail  among  his  people. 

Judge  then.  Sir,  of  my  surprise,  when  I  read,  in  your  Let- 
ter, what  I  understood  to  be  intended  as  an  absolute  denial, 
that  any  such  reserve  or  concealment  had  been  practised. 
After  some  reflection,  however,  I  discerned,  or  thought  I  dis- 
cerned, very  clearly,  the  foundation  of  the  apparent  contra- 
diction. The  primary  question  between  you  and  your  oppo- 
nents on  this  subject  is,  What  is  to  be  undei'stood  by  a  min- 
ister being  open,  clear,  and  faithful  in  the  avoM  al  and  decla- 
ration of  his  sentiments?  Upon  this .  question  there  is  evi- 
dently, between  you  and  them,  a  real  and  material  diffeience 
of  opinionj  and  this  difference  is  very  manifestly  tlie  founda- 
tion of  the  apparent  contradiction  between  you  and  them  on 
the  question,  whether  you  are  open,  clear,  and  faithful,  or 
concealed,  indistinct,  and  unfaithful. 

You  arc  peifectly  aware,  tliat  the  ministers,  called  ortho- 
dox, are  accustomed  generally  to  preach  out  their  sentiments 
without  reserve,  perhaps  sometimes  witliout  prudence.  They 
do  not  shun  to  declare  unto  the  people  all  the  counsel  of  God, 
as  they  understand  it.  They  do  not  avoid  preaching  any 
doctrine,  wliich  tliey  find  to  be  revealed  in  the  word  of  God, 
cither  because  that  doctrine  is  mysterious,  or  because  it  is 
denied  by  some  and  doubted  by  others;  but  the  very  circum- 
stance of  its  being  denied  or  doubted,  is  \Nith  them  a  reason 
why  they  should  he  the  more  particular,  and  the  more  earnest, 
in  shewing  its  truth,  in  obviating  tlie  objections  against  it, 
and  in  so  instructing  tlieir  hearers  upon  it,  as  to  promote  the 
increase  of  their  knowledge  and  the  establishment  of  their 
faitlj.  These  ministers,  tlierefore,  are  accustomed  to  use 
great  plainness  of  speech,  endeavouring  to  make  themselves 
well  understood  upon  every  subject:  to  let  it  be  distinctly 
known  wliat  they  believe  concerning  mauidud,  tlieir  fallen 


19 

atate,  their  native  depravity  and  practical  sinfulness,  their 
guilt  and  their  condemnation^  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  his 
person,  his  offices,  his  atonement,  and  the  nature  and  the 
way  of  the  great  salvation  hy  liim;  concerning  the  Holy 
Spii'it,  his  personal  divinity,  his  official  power  and  grace,  and 
the  nature  and  importance  of  his  work  in  renewing,  sanctify- 
ing, and  sealing  the  heirs  of  salvation;  and  concerning  the 
Gospel  generally,  its  infinite  importance  as  *<the  wisdom  of 
God  and  the  power  of  God"  for  the  recovery  of  lost  mankind, 
its  doctrines,  its  precepts,  and  its  institutions. — Accordingly 
these  ministers  are  understood;  and  in  general  their  people 
and  others  are  left  in  no  douht  as  to  what  their  sentiments 
are. — Tliis,  Sir,  is  what  they  understand  by  ministers  being 
open,  and  clear,  and  faithful  in  the  avowal  and  declai'ation  of 
their  sentiments. 

It  is  otherwise,  however,  with  you  and  your  liberal  breth- 
ren, as  appears  most  clearly  from  your  Letter. 

In  repelling  the  charges  of  the  Panoplist  Reviewer,  you 
first  make  what  would  seem  to  be  a  Confession  of  Faith;  and 
then  proceed  to  shew  the  manner  in  which  you  and  your 
bretlii'en  perform  your  ministry. — To  your  friend  Mr. 
Thatcher  you  say,  p.  7,  *'We  both  agreed  that  a  majority 
«of  our  brethren  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  more  than 
«mian,  that  he  existed  before  the  world,  that  he  literally 
"came  from  heaven  to  save  our  race,  that  he  sustains  other 
<«offices  than  those  of  a  teacher  and  witness  to  the  truth,  and 
"that  he  still  acts  for  our  benefit,  and  is  our  intercessor  with 
«<the  Father.  This  we  agreed  to  be  the  prevalent  sentiment 
"of  our  brethren."  You  then  mention  "another  class  of  liber- 
<'al  christians,  who,  wMlst  tliey  reject  the  distinction  of  three 
"persons  in  God,  are  yet  unable  to  pass  a  definitive  judg- 
"ment  on  the  various  systems,  which  prevail,  as  to  the  na- 
"ture  and  rank  of  Jesus  Christ;"  and  "another  class"  still, 
"who  believe  the  siuiple  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ." — "As 
«<to  myself,"  you  say,  p.  12,  "I  have  ever  been  inclined  to 
'^cherish  the  most  exalted  views  of  Jesus  Clirist,  which  are 
<*consistent  with  the  supremacy  of  the  Father;  and  I  have 
"felt  it  my  duty  to  depart  from  Mr.  Belsham,  in  perhaps 
*^every  sentiment  wliich  is  peculiar  to  him  on  this  subject.'' 


20 

Then,  including  yourself  with  your  brethi-en  of  the  tliree  class- 
es you  s.av,  p.  13>  "We  arc  accustomed  to  speak  of  tlie  Father 
•'as  God,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  as  his  Son,  as  a  distinct  being 
"from  him,  as  dependent  on  him,  subordinate  to  him,  and  de- 
priving all  from  him." 

Such  is  youi'  Confession  of  Faith:  and  for  this  Confession 
I,  dear  Sir,  for  one,  most  sincerely  thank  you;  and  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  christians,  I  am  persuaded,  will  thank  you. 
It  will  serve  to  relieve  us  from  much  of  the  uncertainty,  and 
much  of  the  embarrassment,  which,  until  now,  we  have  felt 
in  relation  to  you  and  your  liberal  brethren. — One  great 
point  is  clear: — You  hold  Jesus  Christ  as  "a  being"  entire- 
ly "distinct  from  God,"  and,  like  all  other  creatures,  entire- 
ly "dependent." — Of  course,  you  will,  doubtless,  not  hesitate 
to  acknowledge  what  I  have  certainly  very  great  sorrow  in 
stating,  that  the  doctrines  of  atonement  by  his  death,  and  jus- 
titicaticjii  through  faith  in  his  blood,  as  held  by  orthodox 
chi'istians  in  all  ages  of  the  church, — together  with  all  the 
truths  and  sentiments — all  the  powerful  motives  to  repen- 
tance, faith,  and  holiness,  depending  .on  those  cardinal  doc- 
tinnes,  at  once  fall  to  the  ground  before  you!  Thus  much  is 
plain;  thus  far  the  matter  is  settled  in  regard  to  yourself, 
and  in  regard  also  to  your  liberal  brethren,  in  so  far  as  you 
w'ere  authorised  to  speak  for  them.  To  what  extent  you 
were  thus  authorised,  I  know  not;  but  would  devoutly  hope, 
not  to  the  extent  which  your  manner  of  speaking  would  seem 
to  import.  Yes,  Sir,  most  devoutly  would  I  hope,  that  there 
ai'e  some  among  those  whom  you  would  wish  to  include  in 
your  liberal  pai-ty,  who  will  revolt  from  your  statement;  who 
will  protest  against  being  numbered  with  you;  who  will  yet 
awake  from  the  enchantment,  more  fatal  than  that  of  Ai^mi- 
da,  inidcr  the  power  of  which  they  have  too  long  been  held. 

Still,  however,  I  find  in  the  terms  of  your  creed,  a  great 
want  of  clearness  and  precision;  great  indistinctness  and 
ambiguity.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  "Jesus  Christ 
being  more  tlian  man?" — by  his  "literally  coming  fi'om  heav- 
en to  save  our  race?"  What  is  he  more  than  man,  and  how 
does  he  save?  What  "other  offices  does  he  sustain  than  those 
of  a  teacher  and  witness  to  the  truth?"  Upon  these,  and  oth- 


21 

er  points  comprised  in  your  statement  of  the  sentiments  of 
the  liberal  party  in  general,  you  leave  us  in  utter  unceiiain- 
ty.  In  your  statement  of  your  own  sentiments,  your  ambi- 
guity is  not  less  remarkable.  Were  it  not  for  what  you  say 
in  another  place,  we  should  not  know  what  you  mean  by 
«the  supremacy  of  the  Father;"  whether  a  supremacy  in 
office,  such  as  Trinitarians  admit;  or  a  supremacy  in  nature, 
such  as  that  of  the  infinite,  independent  Creator  in  relation 
to  his  finite,  "dependent"  creatures.  «I  have  felt  it  my  duty" 
y«u  say,  <'to  depart  from  Mr.  Belsham,  in  perhaps  every 
sentiment  peculiar  to  him  on  this  subject."  IVIight  not  Dr. 
Priestley,  with  perfect  ti'uth,  have  said  this?  Is  theie  a  Uni- 
tarian in  the  world,  even  the  closest  follower  of  Mr.  Belsham, 
who  might  not  say  the  same?  Undoubtedly  there  is  no  man 
living,  who  does  not  "depart  from  Mr.  Belsham,  in  ever;- 
sentiment  which  is  peculiar  to  him."  But  what  are  the  sen- 
timents peculiar  to  him?  None  of  those  certainly  wiiich  are 
exhibited  in  his  Unitarian  creed. 

Now,  dear  Sir,  if  such  ambiguity,  such  want  of  distinct- 
ness and  clearness,  such  apparent  (I  mean  not  to  say  dis- 
honest) "concealment,"  is  found  in  this  Confession  of  your 
Faith;  a  confession,  made  on  an  occasion  so  urgent,  when 
you  seem  to  have  felt  yourself  called  upon  for  a  publick  and 
explicit  declaration  of  your  sentiments;  would  it  not  be  rea- 
sonable to  conclude,  that  on  ordinary  occasions  you  ai^e  cer- 
tainly not  less  reserved,  indistinct,  and  ambiguous:  nay,  that 
you  have  acquired  a  habit  of  expressing  yourself  on  the  doc- 
trinal subjects  of  religion,  in  a  manner  not  to  be  clearly 
understood.  That  such  is  the  real  fact,  is  manifest  from  the 
representation  which  you  give  of  the  manner,  in  which  you 
and  your  liberal  brethren  perform  your  ministry. 

The  sum  of  this  representation,  which  you  have  spread 
over  several  pages,  is  tiiis:  That  you  and  your  brethren  stu- 
diously refrain  from  encountering  the  opinions  of  any  of  the 
various  denominations  of  Christians,  who  differ  from  you: 
and  are  accustomed  "to  urge  peipetually  those  truths  and 
precepts,"  which  to  be  sure  you  call  "great,"  "about  which 
there  is  little  contention."  Butwhat  are  those  great  truths 
and  precepts,  about  which  there  is  little  contention,  and  which 


you  perpetually  urge.  Cert<ainly  not  any  of  the  primary,  not 
any  of  tlie  peculiar  doctiincs  or  institutions  of  the  gospel:  for 
not  one  of  tiiese  can  be  named,  about  which  there  has  not  always 
been,  about  which  there  is  not  still  great  contention.  Tlie  doc- 
trines concerning  the  Saviour's  person  and  character,  his 
priestliood  and  atonement,  his  offices  and  work; — the  doctrines 
concerning  the  moral  state  of  mankind, — regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit, — -justification  by  faith, — pardon  and  eternal  salva- 
tion thi'ougli  tlie  merits  of  the  one  Mediator, — ^the  resurrection 
of  tlie  body, — and  the  final  judgment, — the  "eveilasting  de- 
struction of  them  that  obey  not  the  gospel:"  all  these,  as  you 
will  readily  admit,  are  subjects  of  continual  and  earnest  conten- 
tion among  those  who  profess  to  be  christians.  These  doc- 
trines then,  according  to  your  own  representation,  you  and 
your  liberal  brethren  carefully  refrain  from  bringing  int/) 
discussion  before  your  hearers:  or,  if  you  mention  them  at  all, 
yet  only  in  such  a  manner,  as  not  to  come  into  conflict  or  col- 
lision, AN itli  any  who  differ  fiom  you  on  these  great  and  car- 
dinal points. 

But,  Sir,  set  these  doctrines  aside,  and  what  is  then  left  of 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ?  What  is  there  left,  but  mere 
natural  religion — called  indeed,  in  this  enlightened  age, 
rational  chrisiianihj? — If  in  your  preaching,  these  doctrines 
are  kept  out  of  sight,  or  treated  only  in  a  manner  so  general, 
so  vague,  so  ambiguous,  as  not  directly  and  manifestly  to 
clash  with  any  of  the  various  and  opposite  opinions,  held  by 
professed  christians  respecting  them:  if  you  dwell  <'perpetu- 
ally"  on  other  topicks;  is  it  then  strange,  that  your  people 
and  others  are  left  in  utter  uncertainty,  as  to  wliat  you  be- 
lieve on  these  momentous  points,  and  that  you  are  considered 
as  wanting  in  openness  and  clearness,  and  as  practising 
reserve  and  concealment? 

^'In  tliis  avoiding  controvei'sy,"  you  say,  p.  15.  "we  have 
thought  that  we  deserved  not  reproach,  but  some  degree  of 
praise  for  our  self  denial."  For  myself.  I  had  understood 
from  the  Scriptures,  that  it  required  christian  "self  denijd,'' 
not  to  slirink  from  an  open  avowal  of  our  faith  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel,  and  fcom  "holding  fin-th  the  faithful 
word  in  the  face,  of  opposition;  but  cordially  to  embrace 


23 

them,  openly  to  confess  them,  and  meekly  and  charitably, 
yet  firmly  and  courageously  to  "contend"  for  them.  And 
you  will  paidon  me.  Sir,  if  I  do  not  yet  see  that  much 
*'praise"  is  due  for  yaiir  "self  denial."  You  tell  us  explic- 
itly, that  «'to  believe  with  Mr.  Belsham  is  no  crime."  In 
your  Sermon  on  infidelity,  you  also  say,  p.  13,  "For  these," 
(rei.sms  previously  mentioned)  "and  other  reasons,  I  am 
ynwilling  to  believe,  that  infidelity  has  no  source  but  deprav- 
ity of  heart,  and  that  it  can  never  be  traced  to  causes  which 
may  absolve  it  from  guilt."  It  must  be  admitted  indeed, 
that  you  do  not  regard  with  quite  equal  kindness,  those  who 
believe  in  Calvinism;  as  is  manifest  from  some  very  strong 
expressions  .f  antipathy,  and  from  your  representation,  than 
which  1  am  grieved  to  say,  I  have  seldom  if  evei-  seen  a  more 
"distorted"  and  injurious  one,  of  their  sentiments.  Is  it, 
however,  a  crime  to  believe  in  Calvinism?  wiien,  in  your  es- 
timation, it  is  none  to  believe  in  the  lowest  Unitaiianism, — 
and  may  be  none  to  be  an  infidel.  I  presume  that,  notwith- 
standing the  vehemence  of  your  antipathy,  you  will  hardly 
say  it  is.  But  if,  in  your  estimation,  errour  of  all  kinds  is 
innocent,  then  where  is  your  "self  denial"  in  refraining 
from  assailing  it,  and  where  your  claim  to  "praise"  for 
"avoiding  controversy." 

There  is  still  another  point  of  view,  and  tliat  a  very  seri- 
ous one,  in  whicli  your  "self  denial"  and  your  claim  to 
*<praise,"  should  not  fail  to  be  considered.  If,  indeed,  to 
believe  in  error  is  "no  crime,"  then  to  believe  in  the  truth 
is  no  vii'tue.  But,  Sir,  is  it  so  represented  in  the  word  of 
God?  Did  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  conduct  their  minis- 
try, and  enjoin  it  upon  others  to  conduct  theirs,  in  the  man- 
ner in  which,  as  you  represent,  you  and  your  liberal  breth- 
ren conduct  yours? 

Jesus  Christ  says,  "This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light 
is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  have  loved  darkness  rather 
than  liglit,  because  their  deeds  are  evil.  For  every  one 
that  dotth  evil  hateth  the  liglit,  and  will  not  come  to  the 
light,  1st  his  deeds  should  be  reproved."  Is  not  truth 
light,  and  errour  darkness?  Does  then  the  great  Teacher 
fi'om   heaven   here  represent  a  belief  in   errour  to   be  no 


24 

crime? — a  belief  in  the  truth  to  be  no  virtue?  Or  does  he 
limit  the  remai'k  to  infidelity? — which  in  your  Sermon  before 
referred  to,  you  allow  may  sometimes  proceed  from  "vice." 
What  is  his  meaning  when,  in  his  commission  to  Ids  apostles 
and  ministers,  he  says,  "He  that  believeth,"  (in  the  ti^uth 
undoubtedly)  "sliall  be  saved;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned!"  What  is  St.  Paul's  meaning,  when  he  says,  «<Be- 
causc  they  received  not  the  love  of  the  ti'uth,  that  they  might 
be  saved, — God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion  to  believe  a 
lie;  that  they  all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth, 
but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness?'*  And  St.  Peter's,  when 
he  says,  "There  were  false  prophets  also  among  tlie  people, 
even  as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily 
shall  biing  irv  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction." 
if  tliis  language  sound  harsh  and  unfashionable,  I  trust.  Sir, 
you  will  have  the  goodness  not  to  impute  the  fault  to  me; 
and  til  at  you  will  not  on  account  of  any  unpleasantness  in 
the  language,  i*efuse  to  give  attention  to  the  momentous  sen- 
timent contained  in  it. 

Did  the  apostles,  then,  studiously  "avoid  conti'oversy?" 
Did  they  <*seldom  or  never  refer  to  any  different  sentiments 
embraced  by  other"  professed  "christians?"  Never  "attempt 
to  refute"  errour?  Never  assail  any  "system  which  they  did 
not  believe?"  or  any  "denomination  that  differed  from  them?" 
Did  they  refrain  from  preaclung  high  and  mysterious  doc- 
trines, lest  they  should  "perplex,  and  needlessly  perplex  a 
common  congregation,  consisting  of  all  ages,  capacities,  de- 
grees of  improvement,  and  conditions  in  society?'*  Did  they, 
««in  compliance  with  a  general  system"  of  conduct,  adopted 
by  thein,  cautiously  "exclude"  from  their  preaching  all  con- 
troverted points,  give  up  as  unimportant  and  unprofitable 
every  doctrine  w  hich  any  individuals,  or  bodies  of  professed 
christians  iiad  ventured  to  deny  or  oppose,  and  "persuade 
thems<'lvcs  that  the  best  method  of  promoting  the  holiness 
and  salvation  of  mankind"  was,  "to  urge  on  them  perpetually 
those  truths  and  precepts  about  which  there  was  little  con- 
tention?" Had  they  done  so,  possibly  they  might  not  have 
been  "made  the  olfscouring  of  all  tilings,"  and  been  exposed 


25 

to  <<death*s  oft;"— -but  have  "enjoyed  singular  prosperity," 
«found  themselves  respected  by  all  classes  of  society,"  and 
been  "distinguished  by  the  eminent,"  and  by  those  whom  the 
World  would  call  "the  enligiitened  and  the  good."  But  did 
they  not  act  upon  an  entirely  opposite  *'system?"  Did  they 
not  preach,  "with  much  contention,"  a  doctrine  which  was 
to  the  Jews  a  stumbling  block  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness,'* 
—a  doctrine  which  was  "every  where  spoken  against?"  Were 
not  their  Epistles  all  of  them  controversial,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  and  some  of  them  almost  entirely?  Did  they  not 
zealously  contend  for  sentiments  which  were  denied  and  op- 
posed,— and  the  more  zealously  in  proportion  as  the  opposi- 
tion was  more  powerful  and  determined?  Did  they  not  ear- 
nestly "denounce"  false  doctrines  and  false  teachers?  warn 
the  churches  and  all  men  against  every  prevalent  errour? 
and  with  the  utmost  solemnity  say,  "If  we,  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you,  than  that  which  we 
have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed!" 

Though  the  apostles  were  invested  with  an  extraordinary 
authority,  yet  you  will  certainly  admit,  that,  in  their  love  and 
zeal  for  the  truth,  and  (due  allowance  being  made  for  change 
of  circumstances)  in  the  manner  of  performing  their  ministry, 
tlicy  are  examples  for  all  the  ministers  of  Christ. — If  then, 
my  dear  Sir,  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  have  chosen  to 
adopt  "a  general  system"  of  conduct  in  the  ministry,  alto- 
gether different  from  theirs,  we  must  entreat  you  not  to  think 
it  strange,  if  there  are  some  who  cannot  accord  to  you  all  the 
"praise,"  which  you  *«have  thought  that  you  deserved."  And 
notwithstanding  the  assurance  and  the  pathos,  with  wliich  you 
make  your  *'appeal"  to  your  people,  you  must  not  expect 
that  the  minds  of  all  wOl  be  entirely  relieved  from  the  painful 
apprehension,  that  both  you  and  your  people  may  be  under 
some  deception;  or  from  the  distressing  doubt,  whether,  at 
the  appearing  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  you  will  be  able  in  his 
presence  to  say  to  them,  "We  take  you  to  record  tliis  day, 
that  we  are  pure  from  the  blood  of  all  men;  for  we  have  not 
shunned  to  declare  unto  you  all  the  counsel  of  God." 

III.  "The  Reviewer,"  you  say,  "having  charged  us  with 
"holding  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham,  and  hypocritically 


^6 

"concealing  tliem,  solemnly  calls  on  christians  who  differ 
"iVoni  us  in  sentiment,  4o  come  out  and  be  separate  from  us, 
"  'and  to  \\ itliliold  communion  with  us.' "  Upon  this  topick 
your  zeal  rises  to  its  utmost  height.  And  it  is.  Sir,  I  con- 
fess, a  subject  most  deeply  interesting,  and  of  a  nature  most 
strongly  to  excite  the  sensibilities  of  the  soul.  Here  lies  the 
danger.  Upon  this  subjet  t,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  keep  the 
passions  still,  and  to  attend  with  calmness,  and  meekness,  and 
impai-tiiility  to  the  unadulterated  dictates  of  reason  and  of  scrip- 
ture. Yet  scarcely  can  another  subject  be  named,  which  more 
ijuperiously  demands  to  be  considered  wdth  the  most  dispas- 
sionate, docile,  and  unbiassed  mind.  I  am  fully  aware  that 
thei'e  have  been,  in  all  ages,  that  there  are  in  the  present  age, 
rasli  and  fiery  zealots,  who  are  never  more  in  their  element, 
than  when  engaged  in  strifes  and  contentions,  sowing  discord 
am(»ng  brethren,  and  rending  the  churches  of  Christ  piece- 
meiil.  Su(  h  spirits  are  ufit  easily  restrained  and  regulated,  by 
the  counsels  of  the  more  temperate,  and  considerate,  but  not 
less  conscientious,  and  firm,  and  faithful.  I  am  no  less  fully 
aware,  that  there  have  been  in  all  ages,  that  there  are  in  the 
present  age,  zealots  of  a  quite  different  character,  but  not  less 
rash  and  fiery,  who  are  always  ready  to  raise  the  cry  of  big- 
otry, illiberality,  funatat  ism,  and  j)ersecution,  against  every 
measure  and  attempt,  thougli  conducted  with  the  best  spirit,  an(i 
with  the  utmost  prudence  and  regularity,  for  maintaining  the 
cause  of  truth,  and  pronu^ting  the  purity,  order,  and  prosperity 
of  tJje  churches. — It  would  be  lamentable.  Sir,  indeed,  should 
you  descend  from  your  proper  elevation,  and  lend  yourself, 
with  all  your  weight  and  influence,  to  give  a  deeper  tone,  and  a 
w  ider  extent  to  a  ciy  so  senseless  and  so  unholy. 

It  is  to  be  lamented,  that  on  a  subject  of  this  serious  and  mo- 
mentous kind,  you  should  have  thought  it  proper  so  entirely  to 
dispense  with  argument,  and  with  all  the  scriptural  consider- 
atii>ns  which,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  so  forcibly  press  them- 
s  ivcs  \\\vn  the  conscience  and  the  hearty  and  to  indulge  so 
fj  'ly  in  vague  declamation,  poignant  invective,  and  fervid 
a})peal  to  popular  prej«idices  and  passions.  I  know  full  well, 
an(5  too  many  know,  that  this  is  the  way  to  strike  the  niinds 
of  tiiat  great  majority  of  mankind,  to  whom  thought  and  rcflec- 


2.7 


tiott  are  irksome;  the  method  best  adapted  for  the  iiipport  of  a 
bad  cause.  1  am  fully  aware  of  your  advantage  in  this  res- 
pect. But,  Sir,  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  should  esteem  it 
a  higher  honour  and  a  nobler  achievement,  to  enligliten  tiie 
understanding  and  correct  the  conscience  of  a  single  individ- 
ual, than  to  rouse  the  passions  and  inflame  the  prejudices  of 
thousands.— Declamation  is  always,  for  a  very  obvi.jus  rea- 
son, difficult  to  answer.  Yours  however,  under  the  present 
head,  is  evidently  bottomed  on  several  assumptions,  which  I 
deem  utterly  inadmissible,  and  some  of  the  principal  of  wiiich 
I  propose  to  consider. 

In  the  first  place,  you  manifestly  assume,  that  the  poinds 
of  doctrine,  upon  wliich  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  difi  r 
from  your  opponents,  are  comparatively  small  and  ci  iviiJ; 
not  "practical,"  but  speculati^^e  merely,  and  such  as  do  not 
materially  aflfect  christian   character. — I  trust,  Sir,  it  has 
been  made  plain,  under  the  preceding  head,  that  this  oug.t 
not  to  be  assumed.     According  to  your  own  concession,  the 
party  in  whose  behalf  you  plead,  generally  deny  the  essential 
divinity  of  the  Saviour,  and  hold  him  to  be  a  being  entirely 
"distinct  from  God"— entirely  "dependent,"— in  other  worils 
a  mere    creature.— But,  Sir,   between    a  being    essentially 
divine,  as  by  us  the  Saviour  is  held  to  be,  ami  a  mere  crea- 
ture however  "exalted,"  there  is,  as  you  will  readily  ad- 
mit, an  infinite  dispaiity.     The  Saviour,  then,  whom  y(»u 
acknowledge,  is  infinitely  different  from  Him  whom  we  ac- 
knowledge and  adore.     Four  rock  is  not  as  our  Rocky  yau  your- 
selves being  judges!    As  your  acknowledged  Saviour  is  infi- 
nitely inferiour  to  ours,  so  too  are  the  ofiices  and  the  w  =rk 
which  you  assign  to  him.     You  doubtless  do  not  supp osr,  that 
by  any  mere  creature,  atonement  could  be  made  for  the  sins 
of  an  apostate  world,  of  sufficient  merit  for  the  pardon,  sanc- 
tification,  and  eternal  salvation  of  all  who  should  trust  in  him; 
therefore,  if  you  hold  to  atonement  in  any  sense,  yet  unques- 
tionably not  in  the  sense  of  a  proper  propitiatory  sacrifice.  Up- 
on tliis  denial  of  atonement,  must  f  jllow  of  course  the  denial 
of  pardon,  procured  by  the  blood  of  Christ,— of  justification 
solely  through  faith  in  him,— of  redemption  from  eternal 
death  unto  everlasting  life  by  hiiu.     Connected  and,  gener- 


£8 

ally  if  not  invariably,  concomitant  with  the  denial  of  these 
doctrines,  is  a  denial  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  in  his  personal  char- 
acter and  offices,  and  of  tlie  renewal  of  mankind  unto  holiness 
by  his  sovereign  agency,  as  held  by  orthodox  christians. 

Now,  Sir,  are  these  small  and  trivial  points  of  difference 
between  you  and  us?  The  God  whom  3  ou  worship  is  differ- 
ent from  ours,'  the  Saviour  whom  you  acknowledge  is 
infinitely  inferiour  to  ours;  the  salvation  which  you  preach 
is  immensely  diverse  from  that  which  we  preach.  Though 
you  call  Jesus  Christ  master  and  Lord,  and  profess  to  believe 
in  him  and  to  love  hinij  yet  you  do  not,  with  the  disciple  wlio 
had  long  doubted,  call  him  your  Lord  and  your  Godj  you 
do  not  believe  on  him  for  a  salvation,  meritoriously  procured 
by  his  atoning  blood,  his  vicarious  merits;  nor  do  you  love 
him  witli  supreme  affection,  or  "honour  him  as  you  sliould 
honour  the  Father." 

Are  the  doctrines  then,  about  which  we  differ,  merely  spec- 
ulative? Are  they  not  practical,  most  vitally  and  essentially 
practical?  Do  they  not  go  home  to  the  heart  directly,  and 
claim  an  empire  over  all  the  affections  and  powers  of  the  soul? 
Is  not  a  doctrine  which  essentially  concerns  the  object  of  our 
worship,  practical? — when,  if  we  are  wrong  in  regard  to  the 
object  of  our  worship,  we  can  hardly  be  right  in  any  part  of 
our  religion.  Are  not  the  doctrines,  which  affect  directly  the 
very  foundations  of  our  faitli,  practical? — When  a  true  faith  is 
the  grand  requisition  of  tlie  gospel,  and  the  vital  principle 
of  all  holy  practice,  of  all  the  works  which  are  good  and 
acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 

Hitherto,  Sir,  I  have  proceeded  upon  the  ground  of  your 
general  statement,  and  held  more  particularly  in  view  your 
higher  classes  of  liberal  chrisfians.  But  it  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked, that  you  make  your  remonstrance  against  "separa- 
tion," not  in  favour  of  those  higher  classes  only,  but  equally 
in  favour  of  the  lowest: — of  those  who  believe  in  the  "simple 
humanity  of  Jesus  Christ," — who  agree  most  nearly  with  Mr. 
Belsham;  nay,  Mr.  Belsham  himself,  and  those  who  agree 
with  him  entirely,  were  doubtless  not  intended  to  be  excluded. 
You  put  in  your  earnest  plea  for  the  whole.  The  question, 
then,  is  a  short  one.     Is  not  Mr.  Bclsham's  gospel,  as  set 


29 

foi'th  in  his  creed,  another  gospel,  than  tliat  which  Paul 
preached?  If  you  are  not  wUling  to  admit  this;  yet  surely  you 
cannot  hesitate  a  moment  to  admit,  that  it  is  another,  than 
that  which  is  held  hy  orthodox  christians, — ^^vhich  is  preached 
by  orthodox  ministers: — essentially  different  in  every  partic- 
ular from  the  foundation  to  the  top  stone.  One  or  the  other 
of  these  schemes,  then,  must  be  what  St.  Paul  denominates 
"another  gospel,"  and  against  which,  and  its  abettors,  he 
solemnly  pronounces  his  apostolick  anathema.  The  leading 
doctrines  of  Mohammed  are  not  more  diverse  from  the  ortho- 
dox views  of  Christianity,  than  are  those  which  you  would 
have  us  hold  in  our  fellowsliip.  The  followers  of  Mohammed 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ  as  a  good  man,  and  a  great  prophet; 
and  arc  accustomed  to  regard  him,  I  believe,  with  as  high 
veneration,  as  are  the  lower*  Unitarians. 

Does  it  not  then  infinitely  behove  both  you  and  us,  instead 
of  uttering  vague  declamations,  and  impassioned  appeals, 
most  seriously  to  weigh  the  very  forcible  declarations  of  the 
ingenuous  Mr.  Belsham  himself:  "Opinions  such  as  these  can 
no  more  harmonize  with  each  other,  than  light  and  darkness, 
than  Christ  and  Belial.  They  who  hold  doctrines  so  diamet- 
rically opposite,  cannot  be  fellow  worshippers  in  the  same 
temple.     It  was  expedient  that  they  should  separate." 

Another  of  your  evident  assumptions  is,  that  every  separa- 
tian  between  professed  christians  is  unjustifiable;  a  criminal 
«*schism,"  the  guilt  of  which  is  chargeable  upon  those  who 
insist  upon  it  as  requisite.  Schism,  Sir,  in  the  scriptural 
sense,  I  cei-tainly  hold  to  be  no  light  matter.  But  what  is 
schism  in  the  scriptural  sense?  Is  if  not  a  rending,  a  disrup- 
tion oithe  body  of  Christ,  or  of  liis  true  church?  But  are  all 
who  call  themselves  christians  really  members  of  the  body  of 
Christ?  Do  they  all  hold  the  Head?  Do  the  scriptures  teach 
tliis? — Do  the  scriptures  represent  that  all  separation  from 
those  who  call  themselves  chiistians,  all  withdrawing  of  fel- 
lowship from  them,  is  schismatick,  is  "heretical?"  Do  they 
enjoin  upon  the  churches  to  hold  in  theii'  fellowship  all  who 
profess  to  be  christians,  however  corrupt  in  sentiment  they 
may  be? — Do  they  not  on  the  conti'ary  constantly  insist  on 
belief  in  the  truth,' as,  the  very  foundation  of  christian  charac- 


30 

ter  and  of  christian  fellowship?  and  as  solemnly  warn  the 
churches  to  keep  clear  of  errour  as  of  other  sin?  as  earnestly 
exhort  them  to  be  steadfast  in  the  truth,  as  in  that  holiness 
of  heart  and  practice,  to  wliich  the  truth  is  conducive  and 
absolutely  necessary? 

If  then,  in  obedience  to  the  scriptures,  and  witli  the 
spirit,  and  in  the  manner  which  the  scriptures  enjoin,  churches 
that  are  sound  in  tlie  faith,  separate  themselves  from  such 
professed  christians  as  deny  all  the  fundamental,  all  the  pecu- 
liar doctrines  of  the  gospel,  are  those  churches  justly  charge- 
able with  the  guUt  of  schism  and  heresy?  Is  an  orthodox 
church  to  be  charged  with  schism  and  heresy,  for  withholding 
fellowship  from  a  church  professedly  of  the  sentiments  of  Mr. 
Bclsham's  creed?  or  for  excluding  from  its  communion,  in 
the  regular  way  of  christian  discipline,  individual  members 
wIm)  professedly  hold  the  same  sentiments!  Or  are  members 
of  Unitarian  churches  to  be  charged  with  schism  and  heresy, 
if,  in  tlie  meek  and  faithful  spirit  of  the  gospel,  they  ask  for 
dismission,  and  regularly  withdraw  from  a  fellowship  which 
they  believe  to  be  not  that  of  the  apostles  and  propliets? 

How,  indeed,  is  the  fellowship  for  which  you  plead  to  be 
maintained?  Upon  this  point  you  and  your  liberal  brethren 
have  taken  care  that  we  should  be  pretty  fully  informed. 
The  orthodox  churches  must  give  up  their  creeds  and  cov- 
t^nants,  theii'  Psalms  and  Hymns  and  Doxologiesj  must 
cease  to  insist  on,  as  important,  the  great  doctrines  which 
they  now  hold  to  be  finidamental  and  essential  to  the  clu'is- 
tian  faith;  must  exclude  from  their  pulpits  all  mysterious 
and  all  controverted  doctrines, — all  that  are  not  included  in 
what  is  fashionably  called  liberal  or  rational  Christianity,*  must 
consent,  in  a  word,  to  have  their  preaching  and  worship  con- 
ducted on  such  principles,  and  in  such  a  manner,  as  A\ill  not 
disturb  the  minds  of  liberal  cliristians,  or  Unitarians  of  any 
class! — Is  not  this.  Sir,  precisely  the  way  most  distinctly 
marked  out,  and  most  strenuously  insisted  on,  in  your  peri- 
odical publications,  in  your  ordination  sermons,  and  in  all 
your  discourses  and  conversations  on  this  sul)jcct?  If  the  or- 
thodox ministers  and  churches  wUl  oidy  consent  to  all  this, 
the  thing  is  done;  all  will  be  love,  and  peace,  and  fellow- 


SI 

ship.  That  is,  if  they  will  consent  to  yield  up  as  unscrip- 
tural  01"  unimpoi'tant  the  doctrines  of  faith  and  the  principles 
of  worship,  wMch  tliey  now  hold  most  essential  to  christian 
character,  devotion,  and  practice, — to  hold  it  "no  crime  to 
believe  as  Mr.  Belsham  believes,"  and  to  worship  as  he  wor- 
ships; and  thus  cease  to  be  orthodox,  or  in  any  respect  mate- 
rially different  from  those  called  liberal  christians;  all  the 
difficulty  will  be  removed,  and  the  way  will  be  open  and  easy 
for  an  established  and  permanent  fellowship,  between  them 
and  Unitarians  of  all  degrees. — Yes,  Sii*:  and  if  Unitarians 
would  cease  to  be  Unitarians,  and  become  ortliodox  chris- 
tians, the  way  would  be  equally  unobstructed. 

But  here  lies  the  difficulty.  The  orthodox  ministers  and 
churches  will  not  consent  thus  to  yield  up  their  faith  and  theii* 
worship:  and  from  the  earnest  and  abundant  labour  and 
pains  which  you  and  your  liberal  brethren  have  employed,  to 
bring  them  to  these  terms,  it  is  manifest  that,  unless  they  will 
consent,  you  do  not  yourselves  suppose  there  can  be  fellow- 
ship between  you  and  them.  Because  they  do  not  consent, 
you  continually  charge  them  with  being  bigotted,  illiberal, 
uncharitable;  and  now  seem  disposed  to  charge  them  even 
with  schism  and  heresy.  But,  Sir,  if  on  account  of  their 
steadfast  adherence  to  their  faith  and  worship  a  separation 
and  non-fellowship  ensue,  does  it  not  deeply  concern  you,  as 
well  as  them,  very  seriously  to  consider  on  which  side  the 
guilt  will  lie?  Unquestionably,  notwithstanding  any  thing 
which  you  have  said  of  your  own,  or  quoted  from  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, it  must  lie  on  that  side,  which  the  Redeemer  and  King 
of  Zion  shall  judge  to  have  removed  itself  fi'om  the  founda- 
tion of  the  apostles  and  prophets. 

Your  last  assumption  which  I  shall  particularly  consider 
is  this:  That  it  can  be  only  from  a  bigotted,  uncharitable 
and  malignant  spirit, — a  "proud,  censorious  and  overbear- 
ing temper,"  that  a  separation  can  be  proposed. — In  this  as 
well  as  in  what  you  say  on  the  subject  of  schism  and  heresy, 
yoxi  seem  to  forget  that  your  liberal  brethren  in  England 
have  not  only  proposed  a  separation,  but  have  actually  carri- 
ed the  proposition  into  effect;  and  that  your  heavy  charges 
against  your  opponents  here,  recoil  with  all  their  force  upon 


S3. 

your  trausatlanlick  friends.     Tliis,  however,  is  no  couceili 
of  ours. 

We  have  been,  my  dear  Sir,  so  long  accustomed  to  hear 
the  vehement  charges  of  uncharitableness,  illiberality,  and 
bigoti-y,  vociferated  against  us  from  your  quarter,  that  we 
have  ceased  to  be  greatly  disquieted  by  them.  We  "hear  the 
angry  thunder  murmur  at  a  distance,  with  as  little  concern 
as  if  it  were  the  thunder  of  the  pope,  from  whom  it  seems  in- 
deed to  be  borrowed." — The  reason  of  these  charges  has  been 
explained  in  the  foregoing  remarks.  Your  modesty  and  con- 
sistency in  tlicm  are  notable.  You  set  out  witli  asserting, 
that  religion  consists  in  charity;  in  charity,  to  be  sure,  in 
your  ONMi  sense  of  the  word;  you  then  claim  all  this  same 
charity  as  belonging  to  yourselves,  and  allow  none  of  it  to 
us:  and  thus,  in  effect,  you  deny  that  we  have  true  religion. 
Y'^et  the  very  reason  why  we  are  thus  "denounced"  as  desti- 
tute of  charity  is,  tliat  we  do  not,  as  you  allege,  allow 
the  genuineness  of  your  religion.  You  may  then  deny  the 
genuineness  of  our  religion,  and  yet  be  most  charitable;  but 
if  we  entertain  any  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  yours,  we 
must  be  utterly  destitute  of  charity! 

There  is  no  word  more  abused  than  charity.  Its  scriptural 
meaning,  as  you  very  well  know,  is  love;  holy  love  to  God 
and  men:  that  love  which  is  *<the  end  of  the  commandment" 
and  "the  fulfilling  of  the  law."  In  this  sense  it  is  indeed 
the  essence — the  sum  of  religion.  Is  it  then  a  violation  of 
the  great  law  of  love,  for  the  friends  of  truth  to  decline  com- 
munion with  its  I'cjecters? — We  have  nothing  to  do  here 
with  slight  diversities  of  opinion;  with  differences  about 
modes,  or  forms,  or  inconsiderable  points  of  faith  or  prac- 
tice. Our  concern  is  with  differences  of  a  radical  and  fun- 
dajnental  nature;  sucli  as  exist  between  orthodox  christians 
and  Unitarians  of  all  degrees,  even  down  to  the  creed  of  Mr. 
Belsham:  for  to  this  point  you  have  yourself  fairly  reduced 
the  present  question. — Yes,  Sir,  the  simple  point  here  at  is- 
sue is,  Whether  it  he  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love,  for  be» 
lievers  in  tlic  true  gospel  of  Jesus  Chiist,  to  separate  from 
believers  in  another  and  an  opposite  gosi)cl?  If  yours  is  the 
true  gospel,  then  ours  is  another;  if  ouis  is  the  ti'ue  gospel. 


33 

then  yours  i^  aiiatlier.    In  either  case,  the  great  question 
respecting  fellowship  remains  the  same. 

You  will  certainly  agree  with  me,  that  whatever  tends  di- 
rectly to  the  maintenance  and  promotion  of  truth,  cannot  be 
incompatible  with  love  to  God,  or  love  to  men.  Jesus  Christ 
came  into  the  world  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth.  His  apos- 
tles were  appointed  to  be  w  itnesses  to  the  truth;  wliich  they 
were  to  propagate  at  every  hazard,  and  which  they,  like 
their  divine  Master,  finally  sealed  with  their  blood.  His 
church  was  established  to  be  "the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth."  The  great  design  of  the  christian  ministry  in  all 
ages  is,  to  maintain  and  promote  the  truth.  It  is  by  means 
of  the  truth,  that  tlie  glory  of  God  is  advanced  in  the  world; 
and  that  mankind  are  guided  into  the  way  of  peace,  and 
sanctified  for  the  kingdom  of  immortal  glory.  Love  to  God 
and  men  requires,  as  a  duty  of  primary  obligation,  that  the 
churches  of  Christ,  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  all  cjhris- 
tians  should  do  what  they  can  for  the  promotion  of  truth. 

We  advance  then  to  another  question:  would  it  conduce 
more  to  the  promotion  of  truth  for  the  believers  in  the  true 
gospel,  to  hold  fellowship  with  the  believers  in  another  gos- 
pel, than  to  separate  from  them?— We  have  seen  in  what  way 
only  this  fellowship  can  be  maintained.     If  it  is  to  be  main- 
tained, the  principal  doctrines  of  the  gospel  must  cease  to  be 
clearly  preached;  divine  worship  must  cease  to  be  conducted 
on  principles  distinguishingly  christian;  every  principle,  or 
ti'uth  wfticii  is  controverted,  must  be  yielded  up,  as  no  long- 
er to  be  urged  or  defended;  and  the  friends  of  truth  must 
conform  to  the  abettei-s  of  errour.     All  this  must  take  place 
to  a  degree  proportionate  to  the  extension  and  closeness  of 
the  fellowship. — But  is  this.  Sir,  the  way  to  maintain  and 
promote  the  truth  in  the  church  and    in  the  world?    Is  it 
not  rather  the  way  to  extinguish  at  onch  the  light  of  the 
ministry,  the  light  of  the  church,  the   light   of  the  gospel? 
to  throw  back  the  children  of  light  into  darkness  and  the 
shadow   of   death,   and  to  leave  the  prince  of  darkness  to 
triumph  in  an  unlimited  and  undisturbed  empii-c?— Would 
not  the  first  and  most  certain  effect  be,  the  general  preva- 
lence   of  the  opinion  and  tlie  feeling,— ali-eady,    alas!   too 
4 


34 

prevalent, — ^that  truth  is  not  worth  contending  for,  that  tlie 
great  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  of  very  little  importance? 
What  then  would  be  the  consequence? — Shew  me  a  man 
who  cherishes  this  opinion,  tliis  feeling,  and  I  will  shew 
you  one,  who,  far  from  going  to  the  cross  or  to  the  stake, 
like  the  apostles  and  the  host  of  holy  martyrs,  w  ill  maliC 
no  sacrifice,  no  exertion,  for  the  spread  or  the  support  of 
the  truth:  nay,  one,  who  is  already  himself  bound  hand  and 
foot  w  itli  the  silken  cords  of  errour,  and  whose  "deceived 
heart  hath  turned  him  aside,  that  he  cannot  deliver  his  soul, 
nor  say,  Is  there  not  a  lie  in  my  right  hand?"  And  let  this 
opinion  and  feeling  generally  prevail,  and  where  sliall  we 
find  those  who  w  ill  he  "valiant  for  the  truth  upon  the  earth?'* 

"Whatsoever  maketli  manifest  is  light."  Would  not  the 
separation  in  question  make  manifest?  Would  it  not  serve 
to  hold  up  the  distinguishing  truths  of  the  gospel  and  to 
shew  their  importance,  to  the  greatest  advantage  and  with 
the  best  effects.  Would  it  not  tend  to  wake  up  the  slumber- 
ing multitude,  to  excite  them  to  earnest  and  serious  inquiry, 
and  to  prevent  their  perishing  for  lack  of  knov,  ledge,  "fast 
by  tlie  oracle  of  God." 

Is  it  then  certain,  tliat  a  proposal,  that  even  an  earnest 
call  for  this,  can  only  proceed  from  a  "malignant,  proud,  and 
censorious  spirit?"  Is  it  certain,  that  such  a  proposal  or  call 
might  not  proceed  from  the  same  spirit  of  holy  charity, 
which  ruled  the  hearts  and  fired  the  zeal  of  the  apostles 
and  faithful  brethren  of  the  primitive  times,  and  of  the  dis- 
tinguished ministers  and  confessors  of  the  Reformation?  the 
spii'it  w  hich  achieved  such  wonders  for  the  honour  of  Christ 
and  the  salvation  of  men;  but  which  in  those  illustrious  peri- 
ods, as  it  has  been  in  all  succeeding  ages,  was  violently  de- 
nounced, as  the  spirit  of  fanaticism,  malignity,  and  pride. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  stand  forth  the  advocate  of  a  violent 
sytsem  of  denunciation  and  exclusion,"  or  of  rash,  disorder- 
ly, or  uncharitable  measures.  I  am  fully  aware  that  there  is 
danger,  great  danger  on  this  liand.  And  did  it  belong  to  me 
to  assume  prclatical  dignity,  and  like  you  to  give,  ex  catliedra, 
"admonitions"  to  my  brethren,  the  sum  of  my  advice  and  ex- 
hortations should  be,    Brethren,  "let  all  things  be  done  de^ 


35 

cently  and  in  order;" — "let  all  your  things  be  done  with  char- 
ity,"— The  spirit  of  Christianity  is  not  to  be  violated;  the 
rules  of  the  gospel  are  not  to  be  disregarded;  the  vastly  in- 
teresting considerations,  belonging  to  the  subject  on  the  one 
side  and  on  the  other,  are  not  to  be  treated  with  lightness. 

But,  Sir,  the  differences  which  exist  between  the  Unitarians 
and  the  orthodox  christians  are  certainly  of  a  nature,  to  de- 
mand the  most  serious  and  earnest  attention.  They  concern, 
most  directly  and  essentially,  the  glory  of  God,  the  honour  of 
the  Saviour,  the  welfai'e  of  the  church,  and  the  salvation  of 
men.  In  comparison  w  ith  these,  the  difference  between  Dis- 
senters and  Episcopalians,  bet\N'een  Pjedobaptists  and  Anti- 
pgedobaptists,  are  matters  of  mere  feature  and  complexion. 
Utterly  in  vain  is  the  attempt  to  put  these  differences  out  of 
sight,  to  conceal  their  magnitude  and  momentous  consequen- 
ces; or  by  a  raised  cry  of  bigotiy,  illiberality,  and  intolerance, 
to  divert  the  publick  attention  from  them.  They  must  and 
will  be  fearlessly  discussed  and  seriously  considered;  and 
ministers  and  churches,  professed  christians  and  all  otliers, 
must  and  will  be  brought  to  the  solemn  decision, — whether 
they  will  be  for  Christ  or  against  him, — whether  they  will  re- 
ceive and  hold  fast  his  truth,  or  despise  and  reject  it, — whether 
they  will  bow  to  his  authority  and  trust  in  his  grace,  or  refuse 
to  have  him  to  reign  over  them  and  contemn  his  salvation. 

In  the  mean  time.  Charity,  heaven-born  Charity  must  be 
allowed  to  w  eep  and  lament  over  the  inroads  of  errour  and 
the  desolations  of  Zion.  Yes,  Sir,  charmed  not  at  all  with 
the  so  loudly  chaunted  praises  of  increased  "light," — abashed 
not  at  all  by  the  disdainful  sneers  at  imputed  fanaticism, — 
she  will  weep — that  her  adored  Lord  is  denied  his  divine  hon- 
ours, in  the  beloved  city  of  our  solemnities,  w  here  our  fathers 
saw  his  glory,  and  delighted  to  celebrate  liis  wonderful  works 
of  love  and  mercy. 

Thus,  Sir,  have  I  attended,  amid  various  unpropitious  cii'- 
cumstances,  to  some  of  the  principal  things  in  your  Letter. 
There  are  others  which  I  ceriainly  deem  not  unexceptiona- 
ble, but  which  my  design  does  not  require,  nor  my  limits  per- 
mit me  particularly  to  notic^.  If  in  any  instance,  I  have 
misapprehended  you,  misrepresented  you,  or  done  any  injus- 


36 

ace  to  jrou  or  to  others,  I  can  truly,  I  think,  say  it  has  been 
unintcufionalj  and  to  correct  any  errour,  or  redi-ess  any 
^vi'ong  would  afford  me  real  pleasure. 

I  have  done  what  I  have  felt  to  he  a  painful  duty.  The 
Lord  pardon  what  is  wrong,— and  prosper  what  is  right 
And  may  the  Spirit  of  truth  guide  us  into  all  trutli,  and 
cause  us  to  *'see  eye  to  eye,"— keep  liis  people  from  falling, 
fill  tlie  cliurches  with  light  and  peace,  and  make  his  word 
♦"-mightily  to  grow  and  pi-evail." 
I  am,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

AVith  sentiments  of  affectionate  respect. 
Your  friend  and  hrotiier, 

SAMUEL  WORCESTER. 

Salem,  July  15,  1815. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

Liaui'iMi^ar^  *  ^^^^  '^^  *  ^^^' *  ^^^^'  *°^  ^^""^  thought  ilt  to  occupy  it  with  some 
Yoii_say  i..  6,  "Dr.  Watts  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  was  decidedly  an  Uni- 
tarian. —1  am  ai.ui/ed  that  such  an  assorlion  could  have  been  hazanled  by  vou: 
an  assertion,  whrch  Mr.  Helsham,  strongly  desirous  as  he  was  to  make  out  some- 
thug  n,  favour  o  his  cause,  from  Dr.  Vvatts's  last  thoughts,  durst  not  make. 
1  rom  wlr.t  Mr.  IJelshani  has  presented  on  this  subject,  1  should  certainly  con. 
Chul.'  even  )K,d  no  other  means  of  judging,  and  1  believe  every  candid  person 
would  conclude,  that  the  vague  reports,  so  industriously  circulated,  of  the  Unita- 
mnism  oi  Ur  Watts,  are  most  unso'.idly  fou.uKd,  and  most  injurious  to  the 
memory  of  that  great  and  good  man.  That  he  had  a  peculiar  manner  of  ex- 
plaining  the  mAstnv  ofthe  Trinity  I  do  not  deny;  but,  ilfter  no  little  attention 
to  the  subject,  I  do  deny  that  there  is  any  profif  of  his  being  a  Unitarian;  and 
am  firm  in  the  beliet,  that  "he  maintained  to  the  last  the  ttue  divinity  of  the 
Son  and  ol  the  Holy  Spirit. ' 

««/»"'ttr'"'l'»**T''^"^"'""'^".^'^'"'  '^^"'^'  -^o"  '"^e  numbered  witli  Unitarians 
«Dr  Barnard;  I  suppose  the  late  Dr.  Barnard  of  tnis  town,  whose  name  I 
would  never  mention  but  with  particular  aftection  and  respect.  I  have  great 
satisfaction  in  being  able  to  assure  you,  that  Dr.  Barnard,  but  a  few  month!  be- 
fore h's  death,  explic  tjy  and  emphatically  denied  his  being  a  Unitarian,  and  pro- 
fessed  his  behef  in  the  essential  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  you  wish  for  more 
proof  to  the  same  effect,  it  can  be  produced. 

Of  "President  Willard,"  whom  you  also  place  on  the  same  list,  I  am  not  able 
to  speak  with  the  same  positiveness;  but  from  information,  on  which  I  place 
great  reliance,  J  believe  you  are  not  warranted  in  numbering  him  with  Unitarians. 

Ihe  manner  in  which  you  have  denounced  the  Panopl'ist,  demands,  1  think, 
your  most  serious  reconsideration.  To  denounce  with  a  spirit  so  violent,  and 
upon  grounds  so  unsohd,  a  publication  of  such  well  earned  reputation,  and  sucU 
extensive  usefulness,  is  to  assume  a  responsibility  of  no  ordinary  kind. 

I  have  seen  vour  ".Additional  Remarks;"  and  you  must  permit  me  to  sav,  that 
I  think  neither  you.-selt,  nor  the  President  of  Harvard  College,  nor  any'tViend 
to  you  or  hun  w.ll  long  reKard  it  with  much  complacency.  What  you  say  oa 
thesu.yectof  -KsnoNAGE,"  is  truly  remarkable.  1  really  did  not  know  that 
there  was  any  aw  o  God  or  man,  forbid.Iing  people  to  remark  on  puLUc  per. 
formunces,  or  to  pwlu-n  what  they  hear  delivered  in  pndlich.  If  I  have  trans- 
gresse.l   m  mentioning  what  I  have,  of  a  Sermon,  which  I   heard   at  an  Ordina- 

^Z'}  '**  "***  '"^'  "" •''  'S'loi-ancv  of  the  law  will  be  a^Jmitted  to  due  consid- 
eration, g    yy 


1 


\ 


p 


^ 


dii^«&^*«r 


WSS 


Air- 


J» 


\X '■:»  ■^T(*'<J'"-\T,  ''^  ■ 


